![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Question: why don't this article and Sailor Moon refer to Princess Kao(プリンセス華王)? KIZU 07:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
or Princess Kakyu(火球). Sorry, now I have the copy of these episodes. KIZU
There is no general consensus on whether "Kou" is their first or last name . . . maybe this should be changed? I don't know, but I don't want to. ^_^
"Kou Seiya is performed by Shiho Niiyama, who is currently deceased." I think deletion of "currently" would be fairly reasonable, no? ~Chez
"references to the gods Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma in Hinduism."
As far as I know, the names are references to various types of astronomical light.
Ken Arromdee 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The names themselves are not references to those gods, but I've read before that the Starlights may be based on them. Brahma is the creator (Maker), Vishnu is the preserver (Healer) and Shiva is the destroyer (Fighter.) The colors of the starlights' suits in the manga may also be a clue. Seiya's is red, the color of fire, and Shiva was associated with the element of fire. Yaten's is blue, and Vishnu's color was blue. Taiki's is brown, which is often associated with earth, and Brahma's element is earth. This may be too much speculation for this article, but if we're allowing assertions that there were other Starlights on Kinmoku or that the Starlights are simply a rehash of Haruka, I don't see why we can't include this.
Takeuchi's annoyance with numerous aspects of the anime (most notably the Starlights' gender change) is often mentioned, but I've never seen any references, other than one incident where Takeuchi expressed (extremely mild) displeasure at changes to Uranus and Neptune's personalities. While I doubt this is a complete fabrication, I do suspect that it's an exaggeration: but without references it can't really be proven either way. As it stands, the first paragraph is dangerously POV-infested waters... phrases such as "cheap subversion" seem to imply a bias towards the manga version of the story. There does seem to be a tendency amongst those who prefer the manga to overstate Takeuchi's dislike of the anime, and I just want to be sure that this isn't the case here.
Certainly, this controversy (if it actually existed) deserves coverage, but placing it in the very first paragraph seems to be granting it importance that it doesn't merit. Aside from anything else, the controversy may or may not be founded on a misconception anyway - although the Three Lights appeared physically male, it was implied towards the end of the series that they were never really male, and the form was just a disguise. The article actually mentions this later on, so as it stands the whole thing is rather confusing.
Could somebody please provide some proof for this Takeuchi controversy? Otherwise it should really be removed, or at the very least toned down. Dooky 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Technically in the manga they are the 3 Sailor Lights. The Star comes from the fact that everyone gets a Star Form. Sailor Star Mercury, Star ChibiMoon, ect thanks to their Sailor Crystals. Unfortunately someone removed it because they didn't do any research into this and I'm not putting it back.
So, I edited the page, then someone reverted it for no stated reason. So I've reverted it back to counter this unexplained and pointless RV. would the person who did it care to explain why they felt the need to eliminate my edits? Xuanwu 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a link on this page: http://www.kinmoku.net/pops/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh ( talk • contribs) .
I would like to add some links but Danny Lilithborne keeps deleteing them when I add them on Sailor Moon pages becuase he says Wikipedia dosen't allow fansites. What can I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh ( talk • contribs) .
Is there anything in the anime saying that only Sailor Soldiers had true star seeds because I recall Princess Fireball having one and she wasn't a soldier in the anime. 66.177.3.102 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Princess Kakyuu was a sailor soldier in the manga, though... If you look here, [1], at the bottom of the page, you can see Naoko Takeuchi's notes that say that Kakyuu had a Sailor Senshi form. If you look around on that site, you can probably find a picture of her in her sailor suit. Mamoru's a bit of a mystery to me, as well, but I believe that because he loved Usagi, the rules were bent for him. - 220.237.30.150 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
From the manga section:
"Unlike the anime, there is no implied romance between the Starlights and any of the main cast. Seiya appears to form a bond with Usagi, but one with mainly sisterly overtones and deep respect (because Seiya knows Usagi is a Princess)."
I am not sure this statement is entirely accurate. Although they never become a couple, Seiya clearly has a crush on Usagi in the manga. In volume 17 Seiya gazes at Usagi and states that she's in an unrequited love. She also kisses Usagi twice (though Usagi does not return the kiss on either occasion.)
I think the point about Seiya and Kakyuu could use some more support instead of just being squished into the paragraph on Seiya and Michiru. If nobody minds I'll add a few things in.
-- Yumecosmos
-- Yumecosmos
Granted, the line I quoted above is from the Alex Glover translations, which I understand to have some errors. But I do read some Japanese, and own the original Japanese manga, and I checked it against the script. The word Seiya uses is "kataomoi" (片思い) which means one-sided love. (Confirmation: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/wwwjdic.html) I probably shouldn't have brought up the Seiya/Kakyuu thing since it is pretty much entirely fanon. The only thing resembling canon support that I know of is a scene where Seiya says she likes Usagi because Usagi reminds her of Kakyuu, and Seiya's anguished expression when Kakyuu talks about her lover. Both of those could easily be interpreted in a non-romantic sense. Yumecosmos 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a merge recommendation. I agree with the merge, since I think most of the info in the Three Lights stub is in this article, anyway. Copy paste whatever isn't in here and make the other page a redirect. Xuanwu 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Support I also support this.-- Hitsuji Kinno 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Yup~ -- Masamage 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I only remember one date, could we get references for these "several" dates? Also that section is very slanted towards U/S shippers. Could it be made a tad more neutral? -- Hitsuji Kinno 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this, even though it's fascinating:
There is also fan speculation that the Starlights may be connected to the Hindu trinity of the creator, preserver, and the destroyer: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
Whether true or not, that made me ridiculously happy. It needs a source to be in the article, though. -- Masamage 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Source ;) - Malkinann 11:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clean it up, but the gender-debate section concludes with this statement:
Their status as aliens makes analyzing their gender traits inconclusive and for the realm of fan speculation only.
Uh? That sounds like open admission that this section needs to be deleted entirely. Any opposition? -- Masamage 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: I was trying to contrast the analysis of the Starlights physical gender (which is based on the anime and manga) with attempts to analyze the mental gender identities of the Starlights. Since their mental state would be purely fan spec, I did not include it and put that line to explain why it wasn't appropriate. The sentence does NOT refer to the analysis of their physical gender, since there is confusion caused by the anime and manga sources which is worth noting. Xuanwu 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the section to change bits that Kunzite had perceived as OR (there wasn't any OR there, of course, but I can understand how it could be misread as such). The purpose of the section was to point out the ambiguity of the anime in regards to the issue, based on events and statements made in the anime. The section is now similar to the ambiguity notes present in other Wiki articles, such as the one in the Constructicons article. Pointing out how a show fails to address a certain issue (especially one as important to the dynamics of the character relationships) is important and not OR, I think. Xuanwu 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the article puts too much emphasis on the Starlight's power versus the other senshis' power. It is certainly never stated that they are more powerful, and though it is true they defeat some enemies the other senshi had trouble with, I do not think this is enough proof (there are other explanations such as they know more about them, their attacks are more suitable etc.). Certainly, neither the starlights nor Princess Kakyuu are as powerful as Sailor Moon. -- KagamiNoMiko 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Er, no. They prove how powerful they are. There is a difference. You cannot compare the direct battles betweem the Starlights and Galaxia with the "direct battles" betwen the Senshi and Galaxia. The Inner Senshi has their starseeds taken right away. They did not get a chance to combat Galaxia and prove how poweful they are. If the Starlights had their starseeds taken away instantly (a key moment being when they were wounded in front of her queen's throne), they would of died as well. Uranus and Neptune did not "subdue after a short fight". Thay had already willingly surrendered their starseeds to Galaxia, and after a failed attempt at taking her starseed, Galaxia removed their bracelets, and without those bracelets to keep them alive without starseeds, they died. Pluto and Saturn have no place in this since they didnt even combat Galaxia in any way. Explaining how powerful the Starlights are is fine, the unjust comparisons arnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.180.228 ( talk • contribs)
God, this page gives me a headache, on so many levels. First, off it has 3 Sailors that are generally mixed up with each other. This won't do. It's going to be reworked in this fashion: Main section descrbing the whole lot, who they are, etc. Individual sections with attacks, actresses to the new template assigned. The last part I have major contention with is fan speculation, or fan digging because the fans want to "defend" them. This won't do either. If you want to speculate on something, argue for a part, back it up with sources from manga, anime, and finally interviews. If you really feel like you need to "defend" them, take it to your own website, there are plenty of free space websites out there too, or even a friend can lend a bit of server space. If you fail to do so properly, it has no place on the page. Therefore, in the reworking of this page tons of info will TEMPORARILY look like it's being deleted, but trust me it'll be back and with more info, and scary backed sources with support from the manga, anime, and interviews. Take that to the Sm bank, will ya! And I'd ask for any fan speculation like Seiya and Usagi's romance, fan debates and sensitive subjects that are not supportable to go the way of the Michiru bisexuality, the Hotaru and Chibiusa romance and other ugly subjects that we haven't decided what to do with like the Sailor Cosmos Debate go the way of the Dodo bird and die for now. Wikipedia saves everything, so don't have a complete heart attack. Discuss it here and get a vote on it before adding the section back in and follow the template rules. Thank you. >.<;; God this is keeping me up. I wanted to do laundry. *grumbles* of all of the templates this one deviated waaaayyy off scale. *grumble* -- Hitsuji Kinno 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections I'll start in on the other pages too. This has had about a week to be up and I haven't seen anyone swoop in and try to change things drastically. Given this, I think it would be fine to do the other pages around this format. -- Hitsuji Kinno 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two types of referencing o this page, which is confusing... can't someone fix this? (I'm working on other sections). It looks like it referencing episodes... so it should be trivial to fix. We should establish how to reference episodes too. -- Hitsuji Kinno 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Question: why don't this article and Sailor Moon refer to Princess Kao(プリンセス華王)? KIZU 07:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
or Princess Kakyu(火球). Sorry, now I have the copy of these episodes. KIZU
There is no general consensus on whether "Kou" is their first or last name . . . maybe this should be changed? I don't know, but I don't want to. ^_^
"Kou Seiya is performed by Shiho Niiyama, who is currently deceased." I think deletion of "currently" would be fairly reasonable, no? ~Chez
"references to the gods Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma in Hinduism."
As far as I know, the names are references to various types of astronomical light.
Ken Arromdee 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The names themselves are not references to those gods, but I've read before that the Starlights may be based on them. Brahma is the creator (Maker), Vishnu is the preserver (Healer) and Shiva is the destroyer (Fighter.) The colors of the starlights' suits in the manga may also be a clue. Seiya's is red, the color of fire, and Shiva was associated with the element of fire. Yaten's is blue, and Vishnu's color was blue. Taiki's is brown, which is often associated with earth, and Brahma's element is earth. This may be too much speculation for this article, but if we're allowing assertions that there were other Starlights on Kinmoku or that the Starlights are simply a rehash of Haruka, I don't see why we can't include this.
Takeuchi's annoyance with numerous aspects of the anime (most notably the Starlights' gender change) is often mentioned, but I've never seen any references, other than one incident where Takeuchi expressed (extremely mild) displeasure at changes to Uranus and Neptune's personalities. While I doubt this is a complete fabrication, I do suspect that it's an exaggeration: but without references it can't really be proven either way. As it stands, the first paragraph is dangerously POV-infested waters... phrases such as "cheap subversion" seem to imply a bias towards the manga version of the story. There does seem to be a tendency amongst those who prefer the manga to overstate Takeuchi's dislike of the anime, and I just want to be sure that this isn't the case here.
Certainly, this controversy (if it actually existed) deserves coverage, but placing it in the very first paragraph seems to be granting it importance that it doesn't merit. Aside from anything else, the controversy may or may not be founded on a misconception anyway - although the Three Lights appeared physically male, it was implied towards the end of the series that they were never really male, and the form was just a disguise. The article actually mentions this later on, so as it stands the whole thing is rather confusing.
Could somebody please provide some proof for this Takeuchi controversy? Otherwise it should really be removed, or at the very least toned down. Dooky 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Technically in the manga they are the 3 Sailor Lights. The Star comes from the fact that everyone gets a Star Form. Sailor Star Mercury, Star ChibiMoon, ect thanks to their Sailor Crystals. Unfortunately someone removed it because they didn't do any research into this and I'm not putting it back.
So, I edited the page, then someone reverted it for no stated reason. So I've reverted it back to counter this unexplained and pointless RV. would the person who did it care to explain why they felt the need to eliminate my edits? Xuanwu 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a link on this page: http://www.kinmoku.net/pops/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh ( talk • contribs) .
I would like to add some links but Danny Lilithborne keeps deleteing them when I add them on Sailor Moon pages becuase he says Wikipedia dosen't allow fansites. What can I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh ( talk • contribs) .
Is there anything in the anime saying that only Sailor Soldiers had true star seeds because I recall Princess Fireball having one and she wasn't a soldier in the anime. 66.177.3.102 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Princess Kakyuu was a sailor soldier in the manga, though... If you look here, [1], at the bottom of the page, you can see Naoko Takeuchi's notes that say that Kakyuu had a Sailor Senshi form. If you look around on that site, you can probably find a picture of her in her sailor suit. Mamoru's a bit of a mystery to me, as well, but I believe that because he loved Usagi, the rules were bent for him. - 220.237.30.150 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
From the manga section:
"Unlike the anime, there is no implied romance between the Starlights and any of the main cast. Seiya appears to form a bond with Usagi, but one with mainly sisterly overtones and deep respect (because Seiya knows Usagi is a Princess)."
I am not sure this statement is entirely accurate. Although they never become a couple, Seiya clearly has a crush on Usagi in the manga. In volume 17 Seiya gazes at Usagi and states that she's in an unrequited love. She also kisses Usagi twice (though Usagi does not return the kiss on either occasion.)
I think the point about Seiya and Kakyuu could use some more support instead of just being squished into the paragraph on Seiya and Michiru. If nobody minds I'll add a few things in.
-- Yumecosmos
-- Yumecosmos
Granted, the line I quoted above is from the Alex Glover translations, which I understand to have some errors. But I do read some Japanese, and own the original Japanese manga, and I checked it against the script. The word Seiya uses is "kataomoi" (片思い) which means one-sided love. (Confirmation: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/wwwjdic.html) I probably shouldn't have brought up the Seiya/Kakyuu thing since it is pretty much entirely fanon. The only thing resembling canon support that I know of is a scene where Seiya says she likes Usagi because Usagi reminds her of Kakyuu, and Seiya's anguished expression when Kakyuu talks about her lover. Both of those could easily be interpreted in a non-romantic sense. Yumecosmos 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone added a merge recommendation. I agree with the merge, since I think most of the info in the Three Lights stub is in this article, anyway. Copy paste whatever isn't in here and make the other page a redirect. Xuanwu 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Support I also support this.-- Hitsuji Kinno 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Yup~ -- Masamage 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I only remember one date, could we get references for these "several" dates? Also that section is very slanted towards U/S shippers. Could it be made a tad more neutral? -- Hitsuji Kinno 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this, even though it's fascinating:
There is also fan speculation that the Starlights may be connected to the Hindu trinity of the creator, preserver, and the destroyer: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
Whether true or not, that made me ridiculously happy. It needs a source to be in the article, though. -- Masamage 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Source ;) - Malkinann 11:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clean it up, but the gender-debate section concludes with this statement:
Their status as aliens makes analyzing their gender traits inconclusive and for the realm of fan speculation only.
Uh? That sounds like open admission that this section needs to be deleted entirely. Any opposition? -- Masamage 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: I was trying to contrast the analysis of the Starlights physical gender (which is based on the anime and manga) with attempts to analyze the mental gender identities of the Starlights. Since their mental state would be purely fan spec, I did not include it and put that line to explain why it wasn't appropriate. The sentence does NOT refer to the analysis of their physical gender, since there is confusion caused by the anime and manga sources which is worth noting. Xuanwu 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the section to change bits that Kunzite had perceived as OR (there wasn't any OR there, of course, but I can understand how it could be misread as such). The purpose of the section was to point out the ambiguity of the anime in regards to the issue, based on events and statements made in the anime. The section is now similar to the ambiguity notes present in other Wiki articles, such as the one in the Constructicons article. Pointing out how a show fails to address a certain issue (especially one as important to the dynamics of the character relationships) is important and not OR, I think. Xuanwu 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the article puts too much emphasis on the Starlight's power versus the other senshis' power. It is certainly never stated that they are more powerful, and though it is true they defeat some enemies the other senshi had trouble with, I do not think this is enough proof (there are other explanations such as they know more about them, their attacks are more suitable etc.). Certainly, neither the starlights nor Princess Kakyuu are as powerful as Sailor Moon. -- KagamiNoMiko 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Er, no. They prove how powerful they are. There is a difference. You cannot compare the direct battles betweem the Starlights and Galaxia with the "direct battles" betwen the Senshi and Galaxia. The Inner Senshi has their starseeds taken right away. They did not get a chance to combat Galaxia and prove how poweful they are. If the Starlights had their starseeds taken away instantly (a key moment being when they were wounded in front of her queen's throne), they would of died as well. Uranus and Neptune did not "subdue after a short fight". Thay had already willingly surrendered their starseeds to Galaxia, and after a failed attempt at taking her starseed, Galaxia removed their bracelets, and without those bracelets to keep them alive without starseeds, they died. Pluto and Saturn have no place in this since they didnt even combat Galaxia in any way. Explaining how powerful the Starlights are is fine, the unjust comparisons arnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.180.228 ( talk • contribs)
God, this page gives me a headache, on so many levels. First, off it has 3 Sailors that are generally mixed up with each other. This won't do. It's going to be reworked in this fashion: Main section descrbing the whole lot, who they are, etc. Individual sections with attacks, actresses to the new template assigned. The last part I have major contention with is fan speculation, or fan digging because the fans want to "defend" them. This won't do either. If you want to speculate on something, argue for a part, back it up with sources from manga, anime, and finally interviews. If you really feel like you need to "defend" them, take it to your own website, there are plenty of free space websites out there too, or even a friend can lend a bit of server space. If you fail to do so properly, it has no place on the page. Therefore, in the reworking of this page tons of info will TEMPORARILY look like it's being deleted, but trust me it'll be back and with more info, and scary backed sources with support from the manga, anime, and interviews. Take that to the Sm bank, will ya! And I'd ask for any fan speculation like Seiya and Usagi's romance, fan debates and sensitive subjects that are not supportable to go the way of the Michiru bisexuality, the Hotaru and Chibiusa romance and other ugly subjects that we haven't decided what to do with like the Sailor Cosmos Debate go the way of the Dodo bird and die for now. Wikipedia saves everything, so don't have a complete heart attack. Discuss it here and get a vote on it before adding the section back in and follow the template rules. Thank you. >.<;; God this is keeping me up. I wanted to do laundry. *grumbles* of all of the templates this one deviated waaaayyy off scale. *grumble* -- Hitsuji Kinno 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections I'll start in on the other pages too. This has had about a week to be up and I haven't seen anyone swoop in and try to change things drastically. Given this, I think it would be fine to do the other pages around this format. -- Hitsuji Kinno 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two types of referencing o this page, which is confusing... can't someone fix this? (I'm working on other sections). It looks like it referencing episodes... so it should be trivial to fix. We should establish how to reference episodes too. -- Hitsuji Kinno 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)